Lathrobium rufipenne
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Rove beetle (macrostaph) |
| Red List Status: | Vulnerable (Not Relevant) [VU(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | Included in the baseline Red List Index for England (Wilkins, Wilson & Brown, 2022) |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Lathrobium rufipenne |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Gyllenhal, 1813 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Boyce, 2022 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | A rare habitat specialist with identified threats to all known sites. Most post-79 records come from a group of linked sites in the Norfolk Broads (East Norfolk, vc27) located along the River Bure (Bure Marshes, Upton Broad and Woodbastwick Fen) and its tributary the River Ant (Catfield Great Fen). Its other modern populations are in the Cheshire Meres and Mosses (vc58), where there are recent records from Delamere Forest and Wybunbury Moss. It was formerly more widely distributed in the latter area. Confined to very wet areas of open mire and fen, where it is found amongst moss and litter. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Restricted to two areas. A habitat specialist with identified threats to both populations. |
| Question 3: | At a landscape scale, would the species benefit from untargeted habitat management to increase habitat mosaics, structural diversity, or particular successional stages? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | Restricted to two areas. Unlikely to benefit from management work in the wider landscape. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Continue scrub clearance at Wynbury Moss and other current and historical Cheshire sites to maintain open wet bog and mire habitats.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Wynbury Moss, Delamere Forest
Comments: Scrub control already being enacted on the Cheshire Meres and Mosses and therefore largely already budgeted for. Management will be ongoing.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Targeted reduction of nutrient inputs and eutrophication on Cheshire Meres and Mosses sites - e.g. through engineering/hydrological work/engaging with surrounding landowners.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Pressure mitigation
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Cheshire Meres and Mosses
Comments: Work on this problem is already being undertaken - duration left unknown as it will vary significantly depending on the preferred/feasible approach or approaches.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Adaptive management/mitigation in response to rising sea levels in Norfolk Broads to ensure the survival of this species at key sites (see sp comments for detail).
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Climate change adaptation
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: River Bure (Bure Marshes, Upton Broad and Woodbastwick Fen) and its tributary the River Ant (Catfield Great Fen).
Comments: Coastal management to mitigate impacts of sea level rise requires landscape scale strategic action such as realignment/modification of hard of coastal defences (working with EA and LPA).
Acknowledgment:
Data used on this website are adapted from Threatened species recovery actions 2025 baseline (JP065): Technical report and spreadsheet user guide (Natural England, 2025). Available here.